Ex Parte Muller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 2012

11314983 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/314,983 12/21/2005 Michael Muller LOT920050128US1 (115) 1554 46321 7590 10/31/2012 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER RIEGLER, PATRICK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2142 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2012 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL MULLER and ANDREW L. SCHIRMER ____________________ Appeal 2010-004468 Application 11/314,983 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004468 Application 11/314,983 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 13-16, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Disclosed Invention Appellants disclose, for a graphical user interface, rendering the associated usage frequency for a user interface control within the user interface control (Spec. ¶¶ [0001] and [0007]; see Fig. 1). Exemplary Claim An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 13, which is reproduced below with emphasis added: 13. A method for rendering a set of user interface controls with dynamic content in a graphical user interface (GUI), the method comprising: determining a cumulative selection metric for a user interface control in the set of user interface controls; and, rendering the cumulative selection metric for a user interface control within the user interface control in the set. The Examiner’s Rejections The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Naoki Ohsugi et al., A Recommendation System for Software Function Discovery, Proc. of the Ninth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’02) 248-257 (2002) (hereinafter, “Ohsugi”) and Arcuri (U.S. Patent No. 6,232,972 B1, issued May 15, 2001). Ans. 3-5. Appeal 2010-004468 Application 11/314,983 3 The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ohsugi, Arcuri, and Mezei (U.S. Patent No. 6,070,175, issued May 30, 2000). Ans. 5-6. The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ohsugi, Arcuri, Mezei, and Ordanic (U.S. 5,751,964, issued May 12, 1998). Ans. 6-8. Appellants’ Contentions Appellants contend (Br. 4-9) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of references for numerous reasons, including: (1) Ohsugi does not teach or suggest “a user interface control,” as recited in claim 13 (Br. 6-8); and (2) Arcuri does not teach or suggest “rendering the cumulative selection metric for a user interface control within the user interface control,” as recited in claim 13 (Br. 8-9). Appellants also argue that claims 14-16, rejected under combinations with additional references, are patentable because the additional references do not overcome the deficiencies argued with respect to independent claim 13 rejected over the combination of Ohsugi and Arcuri (Br. 9). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of references because Ohsugi and Arcuri, as combined, do not teach or suggest “a user interface control” and “rendering the cumulative selection metric for a user interface control within the user interface control,” as recited in independent claim 13? Appeal 2010-004468 Application 11/314,983 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contention in the Appeal Brief (Br. 4-9) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3- 12). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows. Appellants contend (Br. 6-7) that Ohsugi’s teachings of the functions do not meet “a user interface control,” as recited in claim 13. Appellants further contend (Br. 8-9) that Arcuri does not teach “rendering the cumulative selection metric for a user interface control within the user interface control,” as recited in claim 13. For the reasons that follow, we disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3-5 and 8-11) that Ohsugi and Arcuri, as combined, teach “a user interface control” and “rendering the cumulative selection metric for a user interface control within the user interface control,” as recited in claim 13. The Examiner finds (Ans. 4-5 and 9-10) that Ohsugi, in Figure 3, teaches determining a cumulative selection metric for a user interface control because each usage frequency shown in Figure 3 is the ratio of the number of total times the corresponding menu item or button is clicked (see Ohsugi § 3.3, which describes Fig. 3). Figure 3 shows names and associated usage frequencies. While the “Name” column in Figure 3 is a list of items named as “Function A,” “Function B,” “Function C,” and “Function D,” the disclosure Appeal 2010-004468 Application 11/314,983 5 for Figure 3 explains that these names represent menu items or buttons, for which usage frequencies is determined (Ohsugi § 3.3). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that a menu item or a button taught by Ohsugi is “a user interface control,” as recited in claim 13. The Examiner also finds (Ans. 4-5 and 10-11) that Arcuri, as combined with the teachings of Ohsugi, teaches rendering the cumulative selection metric for a user interface control within the user interface control because Arcuri utilizes the usage frequency of the controls to determine which controls to display on the toolbar (col. 1, ll. 5-10). Arcuri teaches the usage frequency of a control determines whether or not the control is to be rendered and, when a control is rendered, it indicates that the control is a frequently used control that is more likely to be selected than other controls (see Ans. 11). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Arcuri teaches or suggests “rendering the cumulative selection metric for a user interface control within the user interface control,” as recited in claim 13. For the above reasons, we will sustain the rejection of claim 13. We will also sustain the rejections of: (i) claim 14 for the reasons stated in connection with claim 13; and (ii) claims 15 and 16 for the reasons stated in connection with claim 13. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting: (a) claim 13 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ohsugi and Arcuri because Ohsugi and Arcuri, as combined, teach or suggest “a user interface control” and Appeal 2010-004468 Application 11/314,983 6 “rendering of a cumulative selection metric for a user interface control,” as recited in claim 13. (b) claims 14-16 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ohsugi and Arcuri in view of additional references for the reasons discussed in connection with claim 13. (2) Claims 13-16 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 13-16 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED llw